Boy pilot died after tower gave suprise instruction

[flower]

3) If it will not work then your planning or controlling has gone wrong.

That has to be one of those statements which prove that some of those without the yellow peril simply do not understand the big picture.
We plan, we execute but we also rely on other factors not least pilots, with the best will in the world plans go wrong they do not mean that either the plan or the ATCO was incorrect. The difference between someone who thinks they know and ATCOs who do the job is that they are able to continuously amend their plans. Every action we take impacts on the overall plan, one word in from someone unexpected, quite often a feature on either a Tower frequency and on LARS, means that an instruction gets delayed and thus what would have worked very nicely thank you now doesn't.
The worst critic of an ATCO is the individual themselves, they will think about the situation they created and how they could have dealt with it better and by that learn. Competence is constantly assessed ,although a yearly examination takes place should an ATCO fail to maintain competence within that year they will be subjected to either further training or have their licence pulled, a situation I know many of us who have controlled LARS wish could happen to some GA pilots.

[Chilli Monster]

JESUS! I've seen some crap written in my time but this thread is really starting to take take the biscuit

Flower, aviator84 - first solo is a confidence booster, plus the licence issuance requirements determine x amount of dual time and y amount of solo time. It's worked in the past, it'll work in the future and has no bearing in this accident (I went solo in less than 3, licence in 20 - didn't do me any harm).

Perusal - it's not your airspace, contrary to your opinion. You are mandated to provide access under an authority from DAP, and to provide access to that airspace to all airspace users when appropriate and able to do so.

Single Sprey - I don't tell you how to fly your aircraft, you don't tell me how to efficiently handle my traffic. If you're on a touch and go and remaining in the circuit then it may suit my planning best to bring you to final and then send you around, landing the B737 / A319 / whatever behind you. It works, it's accepted practice, it's efficient and it's good training for the student provided you don't do anything stupid with them afterwards. Far more useful to the pilot than spending all afternoon going round in circles downwind! If you think you can do better - get yourself a licence if you think you've got the stones for it

Married a Canadian - Read the report, no.1 was a trainer who wanted a touch and go - why land it? Go around was the better option (as I explained above)

Vector801 - sorry mate, doesn't matter inexperienced you are once you have that certificate of competence signed then the buck stops with you. Cover your ar$e always

If this accident has proved anythng from an ATC perspective - keep it standard, or get bitten

[perusal]

it's not your airspace, contrary to your opinion. You are mandated to provide access under an authority from DAP, and to provide access to that airspace to all airspace users when appropriate and able to do so

When appropriate and able to do so I always will.

[flower]

Sorry Chilli I must disagree with you

Flower, aviator84 - first solo is a confidence booster, It's worked in the past, it'll work in the future and has no bearing in this accident (I went solo in less than 3, licence in 20 - didn't do me any harm).

It isn't a confidence booster to many, they can feel quite concerned they have not gone solo at some ridiculously short point in time.
Far better to give someone the experience to deal with situations where they really gain in confidence. I would suggest the young boys lack of experience the inability to question instructions the lack of understanding what back track means all lead me to think of someone feeling pushed into a first solo scenario. How many times on this and other aviation boards have we seen predominately young boys saying I must do my first solo on my 16th birthday, all a load of tosh. The milestone should be passing their skills test not going up for an ill prepared solo .

[Chilli Monster]

Then I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. The student would have been at a level to fly solo circuits, and he would have been prepared to either go-around in a standard fashion, in the same way that he would have been prepared for unusual eventualities such as an engine failure after take-off.

If every possible eventuality had to be taught, especially those out of your control, nobody would hold a licence.

[Whirlygig]

Whirls is starting to detect some aggression here and it's not going to do anyone any good especially when she starts writing in the third person!

We ALL have something to learn from this:-

1. To instructors - make sure you're student is fully competent and briefed for all likely scenarios when sending a student solo. If this means waiting until that student has pushing 30-40 hours, then so be it. Please do not kowtow to pressures to send students solo early when it's not in their overall best interests to do so.

2. To controllers - please take into consideration the relative abilities of those in your circuit. This should be especially so if a student is from your home airfield. Be careful of non-standard requests and terminology with students especially.

3. To pilots - be aware that the unexpected could happen and that unusual ATC requirements may be made of you. If you're fazed, then say so! Failing that, aviate, navigate, communicate.

This is starting to turn into an "us and them" situation which is doing no-one any favours. A young lad lost his life and if any one of points 1 to 3 above had been followed, then maybe he would be alive to tell the tale.

I'm going to bed now and I want to see harmony and goodwill restored here.

Cheers

Whirls

[vector801]

Hey Chilli

I know full well that the buck stops with me.

I made the statement.... ''Would I be criticised for incompetance or sympathised with, due lack of experience??'' as a question to others really as they seem to be very quick to criticise ATC in this/any instance.

I was keen to see their view in that light.....

[Chilli Monster]

Wolves aren't renowned for displays of sympathy - especially when baying for blood

[Dream Land]

my 2 cents

Interesting thread name, "after tower gives surprise instruction", give me a break, this is a normal flight operation. If I, or anyone else here had been on final behind this lad and been given a go around, we probably would be screaming at ATC, one is a practice approach and two is a full stop, ATC did exactly the right thing IMO.
xx
As far as student capabilities, the flight instructor is directly responsible for the student, bottom line, that is where the buck stops.
xx
IMO it IS the Local controllers control zone, he is directly responsible for the separation of IFR traffic and participating VFR traffic, traffic permitting.

[cavortingcheetah]

Quite right Whirlygig and hope you have arisen fresh and invigorated for another day.

Somewhere in the dim depths of the brain when one was more of a menace to aviation than now, three words come to mind.
Aviate.
Navigate.
Communicate.
No student should be sent solo until he is quite proficient in all three of these abilities, within the context of the specific circuit in which he will fly solo, regardless of how many hours of demonstration and training this might require.

[Single Spey]

perusal
When I’m doing Radar it most certainly is my zone Matey. If I clear you in, it is on my licence, and, given the litigious world we live in, if you cock up my head may well be on the block. If you sound or act like a clown you ain’t getting in on my watch.

Nice attitude - unfortunately if a pilot is already flying in the zone and controllers change over and one sounds or acts like a clown, he doesn't have the luxury of refusing your service, whether he be IFR, VFR, commercial or otherwise.

So would flower, vector801, perusal, Chilli Monster, or Dream Land care to comment in their professional opinion as ATCOs, on whether the approach and Aerodrome controllers successfully coordinated and integrated joining and Circuit traffic?

I quite readily agree that the unfortunate student in this accident lost control of the aircraft under particularly demandig (for him) circumstances.

[bookworm]

Flower, aviator84 - first solo is a confidence booster, plus the licence issuance requirements determine x amount of dual time and y amount of solo time. It's worked in the past, it'll work in the future and has no bearing in this accident.

"No bearing"? Surely this accident should at least open the discussion as to the cost-benefit of student solo, particularly quite early in training. There's little doubt that the lack of experience of the student played a significant role in the accident.

The student solo training regime comes from the days when the most complex instruction a student would get would be a red flare, and pre-dates the situation where training takes place at moderately busy regional airports.

(I went solo in less than 3, licence in 20 - didn't do me any harm)

Of course it didn't do you any harm. You're a biased sample: you lived long enough to get your licence.

[tribekey]

I've not read the case, simply perused a few posts briefly. A few thoughts;

1) Although difficult to prove, it seems that the decision to axe ATCO's getting some flying training (15hours) could contribute to such incidents. An ATCO who had done some training must surely put him/her self in the student pilot's shoes in such situations.

2)Any student solo pilot should be capable of go-arounds and should not expect priority over passenger jet traffic catching them up.Granted the ATCO should allow plenty of space but, for example, an unusually wide turn onto base / final by an inexperienced student pilot may lead to the planned order having to change. Also some instructors seem to prefer the ATCO giving the pilot an orbit downwind whereas others seem to prefer a turn on to final and a possible go-around.

3)The scenario which led to the accident may be becoming more likely as the number of smaller regional airports where g/a used to roam freely is decreasing as low cost carriers multiply and join the mix.Perhaps under such circumstances more training is necessary before students are sent solo.It's certainly the case that some do say 9 or 10 hours in quiete traffic and then go solo just as a couple of 737's pitch up. Perhaps an ATCO with flying experience might be more reluctant to accept such a flight than one without?

4)Perhaps connected; the standard of r/t from g/a has slipped over the past twenty years.The number of times when pilots are not listening out in class d or do not read back mandatory instructions/information and the number of airspace infringements is much higher than used to be the case. I'm not trying to apportion any blame or reason why, simply stating a fact. Is it an indication of a gradual slip in the level of training overall? Just asking for opinions.

5)The ever more rigorous security 'regime' we all live under has already damaged links netween ATCO's and pilots (for example no fam flights as cockpit access restricted). Access to the control tower for instructors sending their students solo now requires 24 hour notice at zzzz because of 'security'. Perhaps this will put many instructors off thus breaking another link.This cannot help mutual understanding in a business where such understanding is vital.


Finally, my sympathies to everyone involved in the above incident and rather than slagging each other off perhaps pilots and ATCO's should get together and act to demand more cross training and lliason.

[flower]

Single spey,
I cannot really say how well this coordination went between ATCOs as seeing something written on paper it can be hard to fully feel how everything was dealt with.
No doubt the ATCOs concerned have gone over the scenario in their heads so many times and questioned their actions to the nth degree. An ATCO who believes they know everything and has nothing to learn is a dangerous one and not a type I have encountered here in the UK. WE can be arrogant buggers but that doesn't mean incapable of seeing faults in ourselves.
The Swiss Cheese model used in TRM and CRM training highlights how it is seldom one event that causes an incident but a variety of events and it is plugging that hole. AAIB who investigated this came up with reasonable and realistic proposal to try to ensure that events such as this are exceptionally rare and all concerned have accepted the findings.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by Chilli Monster

...If you're on a touch and go and remaining in the circuit then it may suit my planning best to bring you to final and then send you around, landing the B737 / A319 / whatever behind you. ...\

This thread fairly frequently goes off on a "send the trainer around rather than the commercial jet" tangent - However, in this case it was a Merridian (which the salesman tells me handles and approaches similar to my Bonanza). So in the particular case, it was a matter of two aircraft that could expect to successfully mix with each other dozens of times a day at uncontrolled fields getting the controllers into a bit of a muddle (it appears primarily due to the late release from previous controller) resulting in the need to send someone around (a simple instruction that either pilot should have been able to execute from their positions).


Unfortunately as we all know, the student pilot didn't configure the aircraft properly for the maneuvor - which might have been partially due to controller instruction not being a simple 'go Around'.


I am consently reminded and surprised about how much harder the rules (and technology?) make controlling in the UK vs. the US - where mixing of much higher volumes of turbine and piston traffic happens on a daily basis in some pretty confined airspace. (Some day I will get a visit in a US tower and TRACON to see how they compare with the UK)

[fireflybob]

As one who has sent quite a few early solos I have every sympathy will all involved in this accident.

That said I feel the primary cause of this accident was the fact that the student pilot did not recognise the signs of an approaching stall, the symptoms of the full stall and failed to recover from the stall. This, in my opinion, points to a lack of training. There may well have been exacerbating circumstances but I do feel that if the student has been comprehensively trained in stall recognition the likelihood of him/her actually stalling the a/c is fairly remote.

Years ago spinning was part of the PPL syllabus but this was withdrawn and replaced with "Slow Flight" awareness. I always used to think when we taught spinning that even if the only thing the student learned from this exercise was "I will never let the aircraft get to that stage" that he/she had learned somethinh useful. That said, there were accidents whilst spin training was being conducted.

When I teach stall recovery I introduce the element of a distraction factor and include in the brief the fact that the time when you might get close to stall by mistake is when you get distracted by, for example, another aircraft in close proximity.

Like the Swiss Cheese model the accident occurs when all the holes line up. Although ATC may have been a factor in this accident the primary cause was an inadvertant stall near the ground.

[Chilli Monster]

Originally Posted by Single Spey

care to comment in their professional opinion as ATCOs, on whether the Approach and Aerodrome controllers successfully coordinated and integrated joining and Circuit traffic?

The simple answer to the above is yes. There was nothing wrong with the plan, which would have worked in its original form.

As for what happened after - it's all been said here already, there's no point saying it again.

Originally Posted by bookworm

The student solo training regime comes from the days when the most complex instruction a student would get would be a red flare, and pre-dates the situation where training takes place at moderately busy regional airports.

And? The deciding factor is still the same. We're all forgetting here that the student doesn't go solo when he thinks he's ready, but when the instructor thinks they are. That decision is taken into account knowing full well the traffic and situations the student is likely to encounter. After all - it's his licence on the line, nobody else's. If the place is more complex, the solo stage takes longer to achieve.

If it aint broke - don't change it. And, if done properly, the system aint broke.

[fireflybob]

Yes, Chilli Monster, I am with you on this one.

The flying instructor's job is about informed "risk evaluation". When you send any solo flight but especially early solos you take all factors into account, i.e. the weather, the traffic situation, the student etc. This is the very nature of the beast we are dealing with.

Part of learning to fly is making decisions. On an early solo the instructor makes most of those decisions but the student has also to learn how to make his own decisions and hopefully learn from them.

[Gonzo]

NATS trainee ATCOs who get posted to airports do still get the 15 hours of flying. Of course, not every airport in the UK is a NATS ATSU.

[ComJam]

Flower, no instructor is going to send a student solo until they're absolutely certain he/she is ready to deal with whatever may arise on that circuit(s). Including, engine failures after take-off and go-arounds.

It's a very sad incident that ultimately comes down to the guy handling the aircraft, it's not a controllers job to decide who should and who shouldn't be sent around.